Ofcom will now investigate Talk Tv re transphobia.

[Imnobody4]

Here we go again.

From Good Law Project:

We said we’d sue over Ofcom’s decision to dismiss 22,000 complaints about transphobia on TalkTV – now the regulator has caved.

But we had monitored its output for July 2025, a month in which it carried 11 discussions on trans people. And in every discussion, its hosts and guests consistently spouted transphobic views. TalkTV’s stance mirrors the broader editorial position of its sister newspaper The Times, whose toxic and intellectually dishonest campaign against trans people we believe to be a contributor to the rise in hate crime against them.

x.com/JuliaHB1/status/1996576537894703427?t=VgmnlP9LETiwrihlgEkCqA&s=09

Among my misdeeds, apparently, is that I said this on air: "By definition, if you’ve had to get a piece of paper to say that you are a woman, you must accept then that you are man."

I'm happy to be found guilty of defending women's rights and safety, knowing the actual law, understanding basic biology and knowing what a woman is. 🤷🏻‍♀️

Well it doesn’t does it? It’s a legal fiction pretending that someone has changed sex. It’s not real. People can’t change sex. So they haven’t changed sex, the law just lets them pretend that. The law does not however let you pretend to be dead.

The ‘logic’ of the claim is that is that the specific certificate mentioned is a legal fiction.

Therefore, knowing it is a legal fiction and does not reflect material reality, having the certificate is proof you are not the sex the certificate says you are.

The statement is an indicator that the certificate relies of creating a falsehood.

”But when it applies to a GRC it appears really clever and logical to you, only because you have already established your premise that (in your words) being trans "does not reflect material reality"”

That is not actually me who has “established” the “premise”, the issuing government did that.

“being trans "does not reflect material reality"”

Please don’t twist my words. I was very clear referring to the material reality of sex categories and beliefs about those sex categories. If some people describe themselves as being ‘trans’, it is materially real that they believe they are ‘trans’. It doesn’t mean that they materially can change sex because they believe they are the opposite sex or no sex at all or whatever other gender identity they believe they have.

Your twisting of my words is dishonest.

I asked you last night to define what having a gender identity means, maybe you will now do so.

Btw, all women have administrative ID docs that affirm they are women.

In the UK the only 'administrative ID documents' legally necessary are birth and death certificates. Neither are ID documents in and of themselves. They are a bit of paper that cannot prove personal identification.

Edit to add: You could also include NI and NHS numbers here. I believe they got rid of physical NI cards a while back and the NHS ID isn't an ID, it's a reference number. Neither can be used to prove who you are.

No.

The statement was very specific about one type of piece of paper. The type that is specifically for creating a legal fiction.

The type of paper that creates a legal fiction where for some instances the certificate holder can be treated legally as though they are a different sex to others. However, that certificate does not change the material reality about that person’s body and the sex class it scientifically fits into.

It even is very clear in areas of the law that it doesn’t apply for every single situation that person encounters in life.

The point of the statement is clear when the process for obtaining the certificate and the purpose of the specific certificate is understood.

The ‘logic’ of the claim is that is that the specific certificate mentioned is a legal fiction

Right. If the claim stated simply:

"A GRC is a legal fiction"

then people would see straight away that it is simply a rhetorical claim.

This statement is disguised as a statement of logic - if this, then it logically follows that- which pretends to establish the validity/ "proof" of its argument.

The logic goes:

by definition,

If you need a piece of paper to say you are X

therefore you must accept that you are (definitionally) not X,

Anyway I can see that I am whistling into the wind. Lovely day to you all.

Do they?? I don’t. Which doc are you talking about? I don’t have a certificate stating I am a woman. Ooohhhh maybe im not a woman!

I hope you have the day you deserve.

Your Birth certificate and your passport are two.

wow that sounded vaguely threatening. 😆🥴
i can only assume I got under your skin. Maybe something went in.

But they don’t state I’m a woman. They state I'm female. So what you’re saying is that only females can be women? I agree. I don’t have a certificate stating”woman” though so I don’t know what else you’re referring to?

I don’t threaten. It’s saying you should get the karma you’ve put out in the world back to you. And unfortunately you’ll have to so a lot better to even get under the top layer of my epidermis.

Not everyone has a passport. And birth certificates say male or female. They certainly don't say woman because you are a baby when you get it and they can't be used for ID purposes in any case, at least not by themselves.

They are administrative ID documents based on material reality not a legal fiction.

Those female people have consistency in all their records and don’t have any saying that they are male unless they have a similar certificate creating a legal fiction around their sex.

Male people with a GRC have a birth record that remains unchanged on government records that says they are male. They might have other documents with an identifying sex based on that legal fiction.

This isn’t an exercise in the theory of ‘if someone says they are something that this is true and materially real even though it doesn’t reflect material reality’.

This is fuckwittery where a falsehood is being presented as being a coherent material reality.

The GRC status was implied.

No female or male person requires any piece of paper to say they are that sex. They will remain that sex with or without that piece of paper. That is material reality. And it abides regardless of what a piece of paper says.

To deny that the statement referred to a GRC and forming an argument around it being any other certificate is just dishonest representation of what was being referred to. I would call doing so fuckwittery.

But they don’t state I’m a woman. They state I'm female

Dear lord did you just say this?
The extent to which people will happily talk out of every side of their mouth. 😂

I thought the mantra of your political movement was "a woman is an adult, human, female".

(By the way the letter confirming legal GR typically uses the word "female", and enables a person to change the sex marker on their birth certificate)

For the love of God. This is like arguing with a toddler.

They don't need a piece of paper to affirm their sex.

I believe after your efforts here this is hypocritical.

Actually this is an interesting statement:

I have a birth certificate as proof of where I was born and when. These are registration of facts of where I was born and when.
I have a marriage certificate: registration of the fact I was married, to whom and when

Transwomen have a certificate of a lie to say they changed their sex. If you need a certificate to state something you have not done, it means you know you haven't done something and if you need that certificate to prove you changed your sex, you have to have been registered as the other sex to begin with.

What was said is a fact. Maybe how it was said wasn't nice but we don't believe in the bananarame defence.

Ok. So you agree if your birth certificate issued at birth doesn’t say you’re female then you are not female. Great, we’re all on the same page 👍.

Any male who has had to get an extra “certificate “ to say they have decided they want to live as a woman is not actually female. And by law is not actually a woman. As seen in recent court cases.

How bloody sad is it that people will argue for days, months, even years, to deceive, obfuscate, threaten, compel, and try to make imagined and infinitesimal gains over the structure of a sentence.

All of in an attempt to force people to pretend that they're the opposite sex.

This ideology has done an absolute number on a huge swathe of the general public.

And I'm completely convinced that the driver is men's sexual appetite. What else is that compelling?

I don’t believe that the poster involved proved anything except that they attempted to use obfuscation to prove their original false accusation to be true.

I think that is pretty clear by now that this is all this political movement has. Emotional reasoning, emotional manipulation such as declarations of ‘phobia’ and falsehoods.

It's actually really scary how much twisting of words happens. The sneering and fudging. Just to try to prove something we can see immediately is false. This shouldn't be something we need to spend a minute arguing about.

Yet here we are.

Day after day after day.

'Men who have a special certificate are women '. I mean really? I can't believe people actually believe this guff. Yet they do. And they try to silence everyone with a rational mind.